Aaron Sorkin at the Oscars
Friday, October 16, 2020 at 11:00PM 
With The Trial of the Chicago 7 streaming on Netflix, one of the season's strongest awards contenders is now widely available. Even in times of pandemic and one of the weirdest Oscar races ever, it feels like a safe bet to rely on AMPAS to shower the movie with gold. The Academy is known to love an inspirational true story and Sorkin's sophomore directorial effort fits the bill. Some would argue it does this too emphatically, choosing formulaic drama over probing political critique and structuring the narrative around Tom Hayden's redemption to the detriment of the other historical figures.
Whatever faults the movie has, such matters are unlikely to undermine what already feels like a sterling awards narrative. This is a picture of political repression and revolutionary ideals that reflects and comments on our present time. Its themes are as urgent as ever. Furthermore, the Academy has long shown they are keen on Sorkin's brand of self-righteous garrulousness, and almost all of his movies have received Oscar nominations. With that in mind, let's reminisce about the filmography of Aaron Sorkin and its presence at the Academy Awards…
A FEW GOOD MEN (1992)
- BEST PICTURE, David Brown, Rob Reiner & Andrew Scheinman
- BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR, Jack Nicholson
- BEST EDITING, Robert Leighton
- BEST SOUND, Kevin O'Connell, Rick Kline & Robert Eber
Some screenwriters' careers start with a whimper and grow from humble beginnings. Others, start with a bang. Sorkin belongs to the second group, having achieved instant success with his first foray into moviemaking when he adapted his play, A Few Good Men, for the big screen. The military legal drama was a hit and Sorkin made a name for himself as a writer capable of rousing dialogue and potent words. It's bizarre that he didn't nab an Oscar nomination along with other members of the production team, but it's safe to say that, without Sorkin's famous portents about truth and what a novice lawyer can handle, Nicholson wouldn't have gotten this Best Supporting Actor nod.
THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT (1995)
- BEST ORIGINAL MUSICAL OR COMEDY SCORE, Marc Shaiman
1993's Malice remains the only Aaron Sorkin movie to be completely rejected by the Oscars. 1995's The American President almost suffered the same fate, despite its plethora of precursor glory. The Golden Globes, for example, honored the romantic comedy with five nominations, including citations for Best Picture and Best Screenplay. In the end, AMPAS still recognized the movie's value in a "below the line" category. Marc Shaiman's glorious score was simply too good to be ignored.
CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR (2007)
- BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR, Philip Seymour Hoffman
After The American President, Sorkin turned his attention from the big to the small screen, achieving great acclaim due to shows like The West Wing. His return to the world of cinema came in the late aughts when he delved, once more, into his favorite topic of American politics. Charlie Wilson's War is, in no shape or form, the finest hour of any of its creators, but it did make a dent on its awards season. As always, the Globes remained faithful to Sorkin, nominating the picture in five categories, and the Oscars singled out Hoffman's showboating performance of bureaucratic frustration.
THE SOCIAL NETWORK (2010)
- BEST PICTURE, Scott Rudin, Dana Brunetti, Michael De Luca & Ceán Chaffin
- BEST DIRECTOR, David Fincher
- BEST ACTOR, Jesse Eisenberg
- BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY, Aaron Sorkin (winner)
- BEST EDITING, Kirk Baxter & Angus Wall (winner)
- BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY, Jeff Cronenweth
- BEST ORIGINAL SCORE, Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross (winner)
- BEST SOUND MIXING, Ren Klyce, David Parker, Michael Semanick & Mark Weingarten
By far, Sorkin's greatest picture is The Social Network, a cold biopic by way of legal procedural that examines the origins of Facebook and the character of its creator, Mark Zuckerberg. The movie was the favorite of the critics back in 2010, but Oscar voters rewarded The King's Speech with its highest honor. Still, Sorkin finally got a nomination and he won too, along with the film's editors and masterful composers. As much as I think that The Social Network's immaculate execution works tirelessly to counterbalance some of the script's miscalculations, Sorkin's victory wasn't undeserved. Just the opening duel of biting banter is enough to justify the little golden man.
MONEYBALL (2011)
- BEST PICTURE, Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz & Brad Pitt
- BEST ACTOR, Brad Pitt
- BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR, Jonah Hill
- BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY, Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin & Stan Chervin
- BEST EDITING, Christopher Tellefsen
- BEST SOUND MIXING, Deb Adair, Ron Bochar, David Giammarco & Ed Novick
Following the success of The Social Network, Aaron Sorkin scored another near-home run with AMPAS. Moneyball might have left the Oscars ceremony with no victory, but its bountiful nominations are their own reward. Some might quibble that Pitt deserved the Best Actor Oscar or that Sorkin should have won a back-to-back trophy, but the movie's mournful qualities speak for themselves. It's one of this writer's leanest works, grounded in character beats and denuded of needless bouts of sanctimonious wordiness.
STEVE JOBS (2015)
- BEST ACTOR, Michael Fassbender
- BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS, Kate Winslet
The lack of nomination for A Few Good Men might be puzzling, but nothing compares to the strangeness that is Sorkin's absence from the Oscar lineup in 2015. After winning the Globe, he looked like a potential frontrunner for the Best Adapted Screenplay Academy Award, but those hopes quickly died once his name wasn't called during Oscar nomination morning. Still, his florid monologues and memorable one-liners for Steve Jobs helped Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet score worthy nominations.
MOLLY'S GAME (2017)
- BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY, Aaron Sorkin
The Steve Jobs snub feels even odder in retrospect because AMPAS was quick to return to their love of Sorkin. Molly's Game was his directorial debut, but it wasn't as well received as Sorkin's previous projects. Still, AMPAS nominated him, and, likely, Jessica Chastain wasn't too far from the Best Actress lineup. There's no need to say that the Globes also nominated Sorkin since they love him more than any other awards institution. Every one of his movies besides Malice nabbed him a nod for the Best Screenplay Golden Globe and he has won it twice.
Considering all this, it's safe to say that we can expect The Trial of the Chicago 7 to make a big splash with the HFPA voters, though its success with AMPAS isn't as assured. That being said, in this weird race, it's perchance foolish to expect such a traditional piece of Oscar buzz to be ignored. Nathaniel's currently predicting the movie for five nominations, including Best Picture and two spots in the Best Supporting Actor race. It's easy to imagine it earning more, though Sorkin's presence in the Best Original Screenplay category feels like its most secure bid for Oscar gold. If he does get nominated, it'll be his first foray into this particular category since all of his previous honors came from adapted texts.
How many Oscar nominations do you think Sorkin's latest cinematic effort will conquer? Perhaps more importantly, does it deserve any?
Reader Comments (23)
Steve Jobs deserved so many more nominations. Screenplay, score, editing, supporting actor for Daniels. It's such an underrated movie.
MOLLY'S GAME was the beneficiary of one of the weakest years for adapted screenplays in recent memory. Filling out a full worthy five that year was a struggle.
Somehow I forgot he was part of the Moneyball team. Truly one of the finest movies of the 2010s.
Had Steve Jobs got the support it deserved, Kate Winslet would have been a 2x Oscar winner by now.
I see Chicago 7 as a category filler of a certain quality.
I think that the film is warranted nominations at Original Screenplay, Supporting Actor (either Baron Cohen and/or Langella and/or Rylance) and maybe Film Editing. Maybe Picture itself. But I really don't see it winning anything beyond Baron Cohen or Langella, the former because of Borat 2 and the comedian turned into drama (with so many moments to shine, he steals every scene) or Langella as a career-achievement Oscar (even if his villainous judge is too obvious and unnerving)... Rylance won so few years ago (in my opinion, stealling Stallone's Oscar) that I do not think they're giving him a second and that is why they may even pass on him, in favor of Sacha and Frank.
Saw it yesterday, it's a great film, but no masterpiece.
I need to add... this and Da 5 Bloods seem almost locks for a SAG Ensemble nom. Out of them two, I think Spike Lee's is the one that should have a better chance at the Oscar game, but both of them are likely to be sacrificed by Netflix to highlight David Fincher's Mank. It is a pity, as I would love to see Da 5 Bloods win Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor (Boseman), Original Screenplay, Film Editing and Cinematography... a big win for a Spike Lee joint
I love Aaron Sorkin. I'm always in awe of his skill and style as a wordsmith. In my opinion, he's a master of his craft and continuously thrills and entertains through his art. I loved The Trial of the Chicago 7 and wait in anticipation for Sorkin`s next project.
It's become fashionable to bash Sorkin, but this is a very impressive filmography, filled with rewatchable films. I agree with those who say that Steve Jobs deserved much more - it is one of my favorite films of 2015 (and Winslet deserved the Oscar for it - as I commented recently, she successfully broke out of her comfort zone with that performance).
That said, while I really like The Trial of the Chicago 7, I also think if it outperforms Da 5 Bloods during awards season, it will be a shame. They seem similar on the surface - both political male-dominated movies about the '60s from celebrity directors - but Da 5 Bloods is a lot more challenging in its political ideas, and it doesn't go for the easy redemption.
A Few Good Men is such a terrible example of screenwriting craft, though. It can't generate a scintilla of suspense because we know from the moment we see Jack Nicholson's Col. Jessup he's so damn evil -- cartoonishly so -- that even if he hadn't ordered the Code Red we know how the film will end.
Sorkin's been a more baleful influence on politics, though. So many damn people think DC should look like The West Wing.
For me its a near Masterpiece and Sorkin deserved easily his second oscar, which he should had won for Moneyball and/or Steve Jobs. Besides Scrrenplay, I guess that the movie could win Editing. Nominations will be in Picture, maybe Directing, Editing, Screenplay and hopefully 3 supporting Noms. Keaton was also really great, but his role is too small I think. But Hopfully Cohen, Rylance and Langella would benominated. Since the godfather Part III it doesnt happened.
What you think about Redmayne and Abdul-Mateen II?
I like Sorkin's screenplays well enough. THE WEST WING was liberal politics porn, not that there's anything wrong with that. STEVE JOBS was underrated and A FEW GOOD MEN was fun. Still, I can't really work up much enthusiasm for him. The work just seems so self righteous and schematic.
Sarah -- I'm afraid I'm part of the people who underrate the movie. That being said, its score is fantastic and I think Pemberton deserved a nomination in 2015.
Jonathan -- It was a weak year for the category, I agree. That being said, many great adapted screenplays were ignored by the Academy, like Alice Birch's script for LADY MACBETH and James Gray's THE LOST CITY OF Z.
DI -- She would have certainly been a better winner than Vikander. At the very least, Winslet belonged in the Supporting Actress category.
jules -- Of the two, I prefer DA 5 BLOODS by quite a margin. While I don't bash Sorkin, I think he's a bit overrated. His interest in political narratives is baffling to me, since his perspective always feels a bit naive to a fault, while his strength is the creation of quippy dialogue and biting characters. Admittedly, though, his pictures are always entertaining and very re-watchable.
Alfred -- I agree, though its iconic lines often overshadow the script's issues. I wouldn't even nominate Nicholson, but I know some people who would happily give him the win. It's a faulty characterization that gives the game away too soon and too intensely, but one can't deny it's a fun bit of showboating.
Patrick -- Glad you enjoyed it more than I. Personally, Abdul-Mateen II was the MVP with Mark Rylance close behind him. I was very disappointed by Redmayne and loathe the idea of him scoring awards gold for such an uneven performance.
Dan Humphrey -- Apart from my great love for TSN and MONEYBALL, I'm on the same boat as you as far as Sorkin goes.
Thank you all for the feedback.
Sorkin is hugely talented, but there's pretty much always an off-putting smugness to his work that brings down the material.
Bancroft should have been nominated for Malice
For what it's worth, I found Steve Jobs to be a real chore to sit through.
Jonathan is right: if that 2017 Adapted Screenplay category had worthy contenders besides CMBYN and, I guess, Mudbound, the 17-hour-long Molly's Game wouldn't have even come close to a nomination.
The Disaster Artist was nominated, for Christ's sake.
I'm with Sarah on Steve Jobs being underrated.. Steve Jobs is a mini-masterpiece and should have won Fassbender an Oscar (a much more layered, complex, and interesting performance than DiCaprio's that year). And Danny Boyle took Sorkin's sharp script to another dimension.
JJ: Man do I wish Molly's Game WAS 17 hours long. Or more. I didn't hate it, but my main issue is it wasted a potentially phenomenal TV series on a movie that was just "good."
THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is the "Academy Awards of protest, so, as far as I'm concerned, it's an honour to just be nominated" - this line got Sorkin the Best Original Screenplay Oscar for me
@Peggy Sue is right. It is filler quality wise but the Academy will eat this with a spoon.
Mark Rylance is the only legit contender for me but the Keaton cameo.
Da 5 Bloods is better tried for more.
While not related I have to shout Sound of Metal which I say yesterday and loved.
I wonder if Trial of Chicago 7 would've felt more cinematic on a big screen. On a small screen it felt like a miniature Mrs. America about a group of guys four years earlier. It's a great cast and not bad in any way—it just feels like a TV project to me.
I think TRIAL is quite bad as a film and a really bad screenplay (that only gets worse when you consider how much she chopped the reality around AND how much he's adopted from *his own screenplays* for many of the movie's most memorable lines of dialogue. I'll be annoyed when it becomes a BENJAMIN BUTTON and somehow becomes one of the most nominated films in history despite nothing to justify it.